Revealed: Monsanto GM corn caused tumors in rats

a reply to: awareness10

Monsanto isn't nearly that large and people don't usually respond to hysterical BS like the tripe your just posted.

a reply to: projectvxn

With the lobbying power those gits have at their disposal, it was a sure thing that something...anything would be found in this study, to be useful in mitigating this PR nightmare for the GMO lobby.

I'm frankly surprised they haven't yet found thousands of child porn images on the lead scientist's home computer yet.

Although, there's still time for that.

a reply to: ClownFish

every one of my two year old plants was flat and dead on the ground like road kill -- and nothing would grow on our land again except for weeds.

Which is ironic, when you think that killing weeds are supposed to be kind of the point.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: theboarman

Revealed: Life causes tumors in rats.

What...you don't think that a scientific study would have control groups for comparison against the one's being posioned by the GMO's?

They would be of the same species, same ages and same mix of genders. It's a bit pointless not having at least one control group, as how would you compare natural disease rates against the disease being registered during the experiements?

You couldn't. So how many of the control group(s) rats developed tumours during the period of experimentation, compared to those being experimented on...that's the question that really matters.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: theboarman

That study was shown to be rigged years ago. RT is spreading disinfo again:

en.wikipedia.org...

RT's agenda is to appeal to Conspiracy Theorists' confirmation biases so that they will believe Putinist propaganda in the future. Don't swallow it.

CNN and FOX news does the same for your type of Conspiracy Theorist's...the ones who are paranoid as hell of everything else BUT what their governments and official news agencies say.

You are owned by propaganda across the board, which is why you scream so loudly at others who offer a differing view.

Oh NOES, the RUSSIANS!!!

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: theboarman
a reply to: CharlesT

i agree, and the fact you still got people in this thread saying ''The danger is not in genetic modification'' is laughable .

And the fact that you have people rejecting the scientific method is sad.

The scientific method is sad.

It is not scientific at all!

Even HelloBruce would agree that it is up to interpretation!!!

a reply to: ParasuvO

The scientific method is sad.

It is not scientific at all!

How do you go about determining what is true? Do you have an alternative methodology that can make reliable predictions about physical reality?

a reply to: ParasuvO

CNN and FOX news does the same for your type of Conspiracy Theorist's...the ones who are paranoid as hell of everything else BUT what their governments and official news agencies say.

All three have been caught lying, that is why critical thinking is required. The scientific method is one of the cornerstones of critical thought. If you can spot a bad experimental design, you know that claimed results are wrong. If a particular news source transmits a lot of patently false information, it cannot be trusted. RT lies constantly, and the OP is just one example. No disrespect to you or your countrymen intended.

The ranks have unsurprising formed along the usual hard dividing lines on this topic.

With the right use of polyculture, which includes beneficial insect attractors and predator habitats, and cheap one-and-done earthworks in perfect matrimony with tree planting, we don't need drought resistant seeds or pesticides or herbicides or chemical fertilizers. However, we do need a resource that is in much shorter supply than these...humans growing their own food locally.

This is not to say that lab GMOs at the moment have been proven to be more harmful than "natural" GMOs. Just that the impetus for them (drought, insect resistance, earth overpopulation) can be sidestepped, and proven wrong, by growing food in arrangements more akin to the natural environment with a good use of water methods such as roof catchment and contoured earthworks, and there are a number of other benefits we gain by these methods, not the least of which is a more sustainable humanity. IF we choose to maintain our irresponsible food and societal structures by delegating our food growth to the greediest among us then all manner of short-gain methods should be applied to plants and our food until humanity collectively awakens from its laziness and unbalanced fetishism on Star Trek science over the science and understanding of natural systems.

a reply to: MysterX

This is ridiculous. Those scientists flubbed this study.

The study was retracted, and then republished without any changes.

Monsanto does not have the kind of power you think it does. There are more than 1700 studies worldwide on GMOs and not one CREDIBLE study has proven GMOs are a threat.

a reply to: ParasuvO

This was one of the most painfully dumb things I've read.

Science IS the scientific method.

If you ignore the method, purposefully omit the method, or skew the method to produce certain results, which are not legitimate(like the results of this study), does not cast doubt on the Method, but on the Person.

originally posted by: ParasuvO

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: theboarman
a reply to: CharlesT

i agree, and the fact you still got people in this thread saying ''The danger is not in genetic modification'' is laughable .

And the fact that you have people rejecting the scientific method is sad.

The scientific method is sad.

It is not scientific at all!

Even HelloBruce would agree that it is up to interpretation!!!

Yes. I agree with you. For many years we studied alternative approaches to treating cancer and we met some amazing people. One experience that stands out is the man who wrote the books Sharks Don't Get Cancer and Sharks Still Don't Get Cancer. (R.I.P.) He shared his personal experience with the FDA or NIH (sorry, I forget which). His product was proven to affect cancer cells on Day 14. Knowing this, the "official" study studied the product for 13 days and "proved" that the product was ineffective.

In all fairness to both sides, since then, cancer has been discovered in 18 of the 1,168 species of sharks studied. [Sorry Mods, I know I'm not posting this the way you want.] This counter study was from www.sharksavers.org. But it speculates environmental pollutants and toxins are to blame.

Which sort of connects the dots back to the type of corporations being discussed here, and whose favorite sons inhabit the halls of the agencies we are expected to believe have our best interests in mind.